<div id="RTEContent"> Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Les Mikesell wrote: > (a) fedora had a "seriously-minimal" install that was just > enough to get yum working and (b) things that are almost-rebrands I did suggest on fedora-devel a year or more ago that "Fedora Core" would perhaps be more flexible if it really did mean 'Core', ie, was a minimal functional packageset, and there were onionshells around it based on more extensive packageselection. But in the end the problem is that with 'fullblown' package configurations that are suitable for desktop use, you can't really reach down into even ten times the memory footprint possible with a Busybox-style implementation, so Fedora will not stretch into machines that would like a "seriously-minimal" implementation. </blockquote>Sounds like one heckuva! idea. Why not just update the core-utils to a minimal run level, and update the rest as needed? How much could get broke? A little? a Lot? It would sure circumvent the concerns of those with a smoothly running Fedora 3, into Fedora 5, maybe with a couple of hiccups. <waves hands wildly> I vote for this... Red Hat, wouldn't this be better for the large users as well? Why didn't I think of this? <g> I mean you could darn near yum this thing, and use a boot floppy instead of 4 CD's worth. Sound idea <tip of the baeball cap to Andy's general direction> Raul? Ric </div> ================================================ My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say: "There are two Great Sins in the world... ...the Sin of Ignorance, and ...the Sin of Stupidity. Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad. Linux user# 44256 Sign up at: http://counter.li.org/ ================================================<! p> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? With a free 1 GB, there's more in store with <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/mailstorage/*http://mail.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Mail.</a>